Me thinks the 160km range is for a fighter-sized target. The SAR resolution of 0.5m is pretty interesting though, the previous Zhuk AE (MMIC) claimed 1m @ 20km. Of note is the size and hence weight comparison with, say, RBE2 or Captor-E for similar performance.

Eitherway, I think this is a proof-of-concept for LTCC tech. NPP Istok have already developed GaAs (n-) DpHEMT T/R modules with 2.5x the power of the current offering and are working on versions with 5x (5W/mm). This may become the cheaper alternative to GaN TRMs (being developed separately for T-50), for the upgrade market.

…also the K-77M will reportedly have an AESA seeker (use GT):

http://izvestia.ru/news/561643

Well not entirely true… Even MiG-31’s more than impressive inlet ramp design will not recover same pressure at M1.2, M2.0 and M2.8

Agreed, but not just the ramp. Also the lower lip and other interesting duct shaping & ‘furniture’:

I would expect the number of induced oblique shock waves and their location as per the 31’s intake design (lip, ramp and flow bleed/spillage doors) to facilitate good total pressure recovery, with losses being only nominal over the said M range.

Which is why the way to do it is to get the technology to make parts first, & sell them to foreigners, & only when you’re well established in that business start looking at putting those parts together into your own aircraft.

43% of LCA-N’s structural weight consists of advanced composites, the same number for the Rafale is 28%:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-58Qc8ZOa5yM/VNYs648cQvI/AAAAAAAAFjg/CjjkwIcYqqg/s1600/AA%2BNP-2%2B1.jpg

What makes you think HAL couldn’t put a Rafale together?

It isn’t about just parts, not all parts are equal. Are we talking about tires? Fasteners? Maybe a wiring harness?

There are certain extremely difficult technologies that go into modern aircraft…Stealth is on the list for new generation aircraft, as are the high precision manufacturing processes necessary to produce it.

:rolleyes: Pfft…

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin4/rafale_b_tlp/images/rafale_b_tlp_089_of_144.jpg

…

I note & appreciate your points B_I_O, but just some caveats.

As per your links, ‘Smart skin’ and conformal arrays are all very well, but for any operational effectiveness as per operational requirements post 2020, by very definition they would have to be GaN based. GaAs power amplifiers are available with power levels up to about 5W (that’s roughly the upper power limit for GaAs devices, since they cannot withstand the high voltages, currents, and heat levels of silicon or GaN). As a comparison, the latest GaN RF PAs will deliver 5W per mm without breaking a sweat.

Much has changed since the date of your first two links. The likes of CREE and TriQuint are already touting GaN PAs for airborne AESA (including fighter) applications.

Also, developing complicated algorithms for the curved, conformal array will be at the expense of range and resolution (a problem compounded if GaAs devices are used). For non-stealth, stand-off platforms such as the E-3 and E-8, the ‘planar’ array will remain king.

I don’t deny the statements of your industry sources, obviously there are everyday vested business interests in defence procurement. I just think a decade from now if the USAF fielded a ‘Wedgetail’ type platform with an air-to-air & air-to-surface detection range of 400nm and a combined ISR role (like a fusion of E-3, E-8 and RC-135), not only would this make them berry heppy, but the replacement of 3 platforms with 1 would be a considerable cost saving in itself.

JMTs.